US Capitol attack

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US Justice Department could be zeroing in on Trump lawyers, experts say

      by

      US Justice Department could be zeroing in on Trump lawyers, experts saySubpoenas for information on Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman’s roles in the fake electors scheme were issued in April Legal experts believe the US Justice Department has made headway with a key criminal inquiry and could be homing in on top Trump lawyers who plotted to overturn Joe Biden’s election, after the department wrote to the House panel probing the January 6 Capitol attack seeking transcripts of witness depositions and interviews.Trump calls Capitol attack an ‘insurrection hoax’ as public hearings set to beginRead moreWhile it’s unclear exactly what information the DoJ asked for, former prosecutors note that the 20 April request occurred at about the same time a Washington DC grand jury issued subpoenas seeking information about several Trump lawyers including Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, plus other Trump advisers, who reportedly played roles in a fake electors scheme.Giuliani, Trump’s former personal lawyer, worked with other lawyers and some campaign officials to spearhead a scheme to replace Biden electors with alternative Trump ones in seven states that Biden won, with an eye to blocking Congress’ certification of Biden on January 6 when a mob of Trump loyalists attacked the Capitol.Deputy attorney general Lisa Monaco announced early this year that the justice department had begun investigating fake elector certificates at the behest of some state attorneys general including Michigan’s.The House committee’s sprawling investigation, which has interviewed over 1,000 people, has included a strong focus on top Trump loyalists including Eastman and Giuliani. Last month, Giuliani testified virtually for over seven hours but reportedly asserted privilege and dodged many questions about his contacts with Trump House allies.Ex-prosecutors also caution that while the justice department may want to obtain more evidence from the House select committee about the fake electors scheme and lawyers including Giuliani, there are other top Trump allies who sought to overturn Biden’s win, plus key figures in the Capitol attack who have drawn scrutiny from both the panel and justice, who prosecutors may now have in their sights.A grand jury in Washington DC, for instance, also began issuing subpoenas a few months ago seeking information about Trump allies involved in the planning and financing of the large Trump rally that preceded the Capitol attack, as the Washington Post first reported.Further, other recent grand jury activity in Washington indicates a widening justice inquiry into top Trump allies including a subpoena last month to Peter Navarro, Trump’s former top trade advisor, for testimony and some of his written communications with Trump. Navarro has responded with a lawsuit to block the subpoena.In addition, several months ago the House sent the justice department a criminal contempt of Congress referral about Mark Meadows, Trump’s former chief of staff, who played key roles in efforts to overturn Biden’s win, and was not fully cooperative with the panel’s requests for documents and testimonyIn replying to justice department’s letter, the January 6 panel chair Bennie Thompson stressed that the committee’s inquiry is ongoing and that “we told them that as a committee, the product was ours, and we’re not giving anyone access to the work product … we can’t give them unilateral access.” and called the DoJ request “premature.”But Thompson also told reporters last month the committee may allow some materials requested to be reviewed in the panel’s officesFormer prosecutors say Thompson’s response, albeit mixed, seems to augur well for more cooperation in the future and pointed to several ways that the overture to the House panel could substantially benefit current inquiries.“The DoJ request for the fruits of the House committee investigation was inevitable but is still very important,” former justice inspector general Michael Bromwich said.“It will substantially advance the DoJ investigation into the role played by higher-level architects of the insurrection,” Bromwich added. “ It will save DoJ time and resources in pushing the investigation forward. It’s very much like having a large second investigative staff that has been working in parallel rather than at cross-purposes with the criminal investigators. Because the House committee has not immunized any witnesses, the legal obstacles for using that testimony don’t exist.”Despite Thompson’s initial guarded response, Bromwich said he expects “they will comply promptly”, adding that the panel “is probably irritated that the request didn’t come earlier, rather than at a time its members are swamped with prep for public hearings and is well into drafting its report”.Likewise, Barbara McQuade, a former US attorney for the eastern district of Michigan, told the Guardian that outreach to obtain key transcripts from the House panel could prove a boon to prosecutors.“Obtaining the transcripts directly from the committee is a way to maximize efficiency,” said McQuade, now a professor of practice at the University of Michigan Law School. “Investigators can see what witnesses have said before and decide whether they need to be interviewed again. They can use the transcripts to eliminate witnesses who don’t have much light to shed on the matters under investigation.”McQuade noted that months ago, “Monaco confirmed that DoJ had received evidence from state AGs about alternate slates of electors and was investigating. It appears that DoJ is now issuing subpoenas regarding this episode. They will likely ask questions about why and how this plan was carried out and who was involved. The answers to those questions will guide the investigation. One could imagine each link leading to the next and possibly all the way to Donald Trump.”As of late May, the justice department had charged over 830 people for crimes related to their roles in the January 6 Capitol attack which followed a Trump rally where he urged a large crowd to “fight like hell.” The federal charges range from illegal entry to seditious conspiracy involving Proud Boys and Oath Keepers members, some of whom have pleaded guilty.On another front, a CNN report in late May revealed that FBI agents had recently conducted interviews in Georgia and Michigan with individuals who initially signed up to be Trump electors but then bowed out, asking specific questions about their contacts with Trump campaign officials and others.As DoJ has ramped up its inquiry into Trump’s fake electors, ex-prosecutors see more benefits that DoJ’s request to the House committee could produce.“One expects that the main purpose is to check the consistency of critical accounts – which is valuable and does signal that DoJ is moving forward amid signs that it is increasingly examining the conduct of Giuliani and Eastman,” ex-prosecutor Paul Rosenzweig saidIn another investigative twist, Paul Pelletier, the former acting chief of the fraud section at DoJ said: “DoJ’s public acknowledgment of their interest in the January 6 transcripts may well be only the tip of the iceberg.“While Chairman Thompson has deferred a formal response to the government’s inquiry, they likely have been informally sharing evidence for some time as is common in these investigations.”Looking forward, other ex-prosecutors sound bullish the House panel will extend cooperation to DoJ.“The panel is sure to cooperate because they are patriots,” former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut told me. “They know the importance of January 6 criminal accountability. That is the DoJ’s department, not theirs,” but predicted that the committee “will cooperate on their schedule”.Aftergut stressed that the committee has done a “bang up job” with its wide ranging investigation, but likely wants to keep the public’s attention focused on their upcoming hearings which Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin has predicted will “blow the roof off the House”.Still, he added, “Chairman Thompson calling cooperation now “premature” signals that it’s coming.”TopicsDonald TrumpUS justice systemRudy GiulianiUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump aide Peter Navarro ordered to testify before grand jury over January 6

      by

      Trump aide Peter Navarro ordered to testify before grand jury over January 6Former White House adviser reveals federal subpoena, which also calls for documents to be handed over, in court filing Peter Navarro, a top White House adviser to Donald Trump, revealed in a court filing on Monday that he had been ordered to testify before a federal grand jury and produce to prosecutors any records concerning January 6, including communications with the former president.The grand jury subpoena to Navarro, which he said was served by two FBI agents last week, compels him to produce documents to the US attorney for the District of Columbia and could indicate widening justice department action ensnaring senior Trump administration officials.Trump calls Capitol attack an ‘insurrection hoax’ as public hearings set to beginRead moreNavarro’s disclosure about the subpoena came in an 88-page filing that seeks a federal court to declare the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack unlawful, in a desperate move to stop a potential contempt of Congress indictment for defying the panel’s subpoena.The grand jury subpoena appeared to be part of a case to hold Navarro in contempt rather than pertaining to the justice department’s criminal investigation into the Capitol attack, though the exact nature of the justice department subpoena was not immediately clear.But the new filing, reviewed by the Guardian, that Navarro will submit to the US district court for the District of Columbia, is not expected to succeed beyond causing a nuisance and possibly delaying the justice department from moving on a contempt indictment.The filing is seeking the court to rule that the select committee is not properly constituted and therefore illegal, because the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, refused last year to appoint some Republican members put forward by the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy.Since the panel supposedly lacks a Republican minority – despite the presence of Republicans Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger – its subpoenas are unenforceable, the suit argues, and therefore his non-compliance with his subpoena is immaterial and should mean the justice department cannot act on a referral for contempt of Congress.The filing also asks the court to grant an injunction preventing the US attorney for the District of Columbia, Matthew Graves, from enforcing a 28 May 2022 grand jury subpoena compelling him to produce documents requested in the select committee subpoena.“Since the subpoena of the Committee is ultra vires, unlawful, and unenforceable, the US Attorney’s Grand Jury Subpoena is likewise ultra vires, unlawful, and unenforceable and the US Attorney must be enjoined from any actions to enforce this subpoena,” Navarro wrote.The argument that the select committee is not properly constituted has been a common charge levelled by some of Trump’s allies against the congressional investigation into January 6, as they seek to find any way to avoid having to cooperate with the sprawling investigation.But even as Navarro repeats the claim echoed by prominent Republican members of Congress challenging their subpoenas from the panel, he may find his suit an uphill battle given that multiple federal courts have repeatedly rejected that argument as meritless.Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee to the DC district court, most recently ruled this month that the panel was not illegitimate when the Republican National Committee mounted a legal challenge to block a subpoena demanding records from its email vendor, Salesforce.Navarro’s additional argument that Biden could not waive the executive privilege asserted by Trump that precluded him from testifying to the panel is also expected to run into difficulty given the supreme court rejected that reading of the presidential protection.In the opinion that declined to grant Trump an injunction to stop the National Archives turning over White House documents to the inquiry, the supreme court ruled that although Trump had some ability to assert executive privilege, it did not overcome Biden’s waiver.The arguments put forward by Navarro are questionable from a legal standpoint, two former US attorneys told the Guardian, broadly characterizing Navarro’s complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief as a frivolous suit designed to buy him time.A spokesman for the select committee declined to comment.Navarro was referred to the justice department for criminal contempt of Congress by the full House of Representatives in April after he entirely ignored a subpoena issued to him in February demanding that he produce documents and appear for a deposition.The top White House trade adviser to Trump was deeply involved in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election from the very start, the Guardian has previously reported, deputizing his aides to help produce reports on largely debunked claims of election fraud.Navarro was also in touch with Trump’s legal team led by Rudy Giuliani and operatives working from a Trump “war room” at the Willard hotel in Washington to stop Biden’s election certification from taking place on January 6 – a plan he christened the “Green Bay Sweep”.TopicsUS Capitol attackTrump administrationnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump calls Capitol attack an ‘insurrection hoax’ as public hearings set to begin

      by

      Trump calls Capitol attack an ‘insurrection hoax’ as public hearings set to beginFormer president intensifies attacks on Liz Cheney at Wyoming rally and endorses her Republican primary challenger in midterm elections As the House committee investigating the attack on the US Capitol by extremist supporters of Donald Trump prepares to start public hearings next week, the former president called the insurrection on January 6, 2021, a hoax.Trump spoke at a rally in Wyoming on Saturday night in support of the Republican primary challenger in the midterm elections to congresswoman Liz Cheney. Cheney sits on the committee and has been vilified by Trump since she voted in favor of his historic second impeachment over the insurrection.Addressing the sub-capacity crowd at a rally in Casper for Republican candidate Harriet Hageman, Trump slammed Cheney, saying: “As one of the nation’s leading proponents of the insurrection hoax, Liz Cheney has pushed a grotesquely false, fabricated, hysterical partisan narrative.”Capitol attack panel to hold six public hearings as it aims to show how Trump broke lawRead moreHe added: “Look at the so-called word insurrection, January 6 – what a lot of crap.”Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives a week after a violent mob broke into the US Capitol to try in vain to prevent a joint session of congress certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory over Republican Trump in the 2020 presidential election.Trump was accused of inciting the deadly insurrection because he held a rally near the White House that morning, during which he urged the crowd to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell” to overturn the election result.Then as the violent mob, many carrying Trump banners, broke into the Capitol and rampaged through corridors, offices and chambers, attacking vastly outnumbered police officers and sending Democrats and Republicans fleeing for their lives, Trump ignored calls from colleagues and relatives to publicly call his supporters off and only hours later went on TV mildly telling people to “go home”.Trump was acquitted at his impeachment trial by the US Senate. A bipartisan Senate report later linked seven deaths to the Capitol attack on January 6.Lawmakers called for an independent commission to be created, similar to one set up after the terrorist attacks on the US on September 11 2001, to investigate the events on and leading up to January 6 and the involvement of the Trump White House.Republicans in the Senate killed that move so the House last summer formed a select committee to investigate the insurrection, chaired by Mississippi Democratic congressman Bennie Thompson but also including Republicans Adam Kinzinger and Cheney, the daughter of former vice-president Dick Cheney.The committee has since gathered mountains of evidence and taken testimony from numerous witnesses behind closed doors, while being stonewalled by many senior Republicans, and accuses Trump of attempting to lead a type of coup.January 6 ‘was a coup organized by the president’, says Jamie RaskinRead moreThe committee is due to hold a series of public hearings beginning 9 June and expects to present a report before the midterm elections in November. Separately, the Department of Justice is also investigating events on and surrounding the Capitol attack, led by the US attorney general, Merrick Garland.At the rally in Wyoming , Trump appeared to lament the treatment of those arrested for taking part in the Capitol attack, while falsely claiming that anti-fascist and Black Lives Matter movement anti-racism activists “have killed plenty”.“Look what they are doing to these people,” he said.More than 800 people have been charged with federal crimes relating to the riot on January 6, in the biggest federal criminal investigation since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.At least 300 have already pleaded guilty, mostly to misdemeanors, and nearly 20o have been sentenced. Approximately 100 others have trial dates.In the latest court cases, Matthew Mark Wood, of North Carolina, pleaded guilty last Friday to charges that he stormed the Capitol, including a felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding, and will be sentenced in September.He entered the Capitol by climbing through a smashed window and followed others who had overcome police through corridors and into House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s offices.Also last Friday Matthew Joseph Buckler, of Maryland, pleaded guilty and will be sentenced in July for “parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building” after also entering through a window breached by the mob.It was ruled in court that the former top leader of the far right, violent group the Proud Boys, Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, will remain jailed while awaiting trial on charges that he conspired with other members of the extremist group to take part in the insurrection.Tarrio, a south Florida resident, has been indicted on charges including conspiracy.TopicsUS newsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Kevin McCarthy refuses to comply with House Capitol attack panel subpoena

      by

      Kevin McCarthy refuses to comply with House Capitol attack panel subpoenaThe Republican minority leader sent an 11-page letter appearing to demand materials from the committee related to his questioning Kevin McCarthy, the top Republican in the House, indicated on Friday to the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack that he would not cooperate with a subpoena unless he could review deposition topics and the legal rationale justifying the request.The California congressman’s response adopts an adversarial position similar to other subpoenaed Republican Congress members, and it sets a conundrum for the panel over whether to entertain the requests that also challenge the January 6 inquiry’s legitimacy.McCarthy appeared to tell the select committee in an 11-page letter through his lawyer that he would not consider complying with the subpoena until House investigators turned over materials that would reveal what the panel intended to use in questioning ahead of a deposition.Rudy Giuliani stonewalls Capitol attack investigators during lengthy depositionRead moreThe House minority leader also asked the panel to give him internal analyses about the constitutional and legal rationales justifying the subpoena, and whether the panel would adhere to one-hour questioning between majority and minority counsel, according to the letter.McCarthy’s references to the minority counsel amounted to a thinly veiled attack at the investigation, which Republicans have called illegitimate because the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, refused last year to appoint some of McCarthy’s picks for the Republican minority.The accusations, however, are to some degree disingenuous: it was McCarthy who pulled all Republican participation, incensed at Pelosi’s refusals, rather than name different members. Pelosi later added Republican congressmembers Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger to the panel.McCarthy’s requests also appeared phrased in a manner expecting the select committee to decline his requests, with the letter accusing the panel of issuing unprecedented subpoenas to five House Republicans in an illegal and unconstitutional manner.“The select committee is clearly not acting within the confines of any legislative purpose,” the letter said. “It is unclear how the select committee believes it is operating within the bounds of law or even within the confines of any legislative purpose.”The response from McCarthy largely mirrored the response from Ohio congressman Jim Jordan on Wednesday. In the letter, obtained by the Guardian, Jordan said he would consider complying only if the panel shared material that put him under scrutiny.Like with Jordan, it was not immediately clear how McCarthy might act if the select committee refused his requests. The investigation’s standard operating procedure to date has been not to share such materials with witnesses, according to a source familiar with the matter.The panel’s next move could have significant ramifications for both its inquiry and Congress. If the panel refused the request and the five subpoenaed House Republicans in turn declined to cooperate, it could leave large unanswered questions about the Capitol attack.But it could also set a problematic precedent for Republicans themselves, who might like the idea of subpoenaing Democrats in partisan investigations should the GOP take control of the House – as Capitol Hill widely expects – after the 2022 midterm elections.A spokesperson for the select committee declined to comment.The resistance from McCarthy came as he and Jordan denounced the investigation as a “kangaroo court” in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. “For House Republican leaders to agree to participate in this political stunt would change the House forever,” they wrote.With McCarthy’s refusal to appear for a deposition without first receiving materials from the select committee, at least four of the five Republicans subpoenaed to testify about their roles in the events of 6 January have now declined to comply without some sort of negotiation.The current chairman of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, Scott Perry, and its previous chairman, Andy Biggs, have both sent letters to the panel refusing to cooperate, CNN reported. It was not clear whether the fifth Republican, Mo Brooks, would comply.TopicsUS Capitol attackRepublicansHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Kevin McCarthy refuses to comply with January 6 attack panel subpoena

      by

      Kevin McCarthy refuses to comply with January 6 attack panel subpoenaThe Republican minority leader sent an 11-page letter appearing to demand materials from the committee related to his questioning Kevin McCarthy, the top Republican in the House, indicated on Friday to the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack that he would not cooperate with a subpoena unless he could review deposition topics and the legal rationale justifying the request.The California congressman’s response adopts an adversarial position similar to other subpoenaed Republican Congress members, and it sets a conundrum for the panel over whether to entertain the requests that also challenge the January 6 inquiry’s legitimacy.McCarthy appeared to tell the select committee in an 11-page letter through his lawyer that he would not consider complying with the subpoena until House investigators turned over materials that would reveal what the panel intended to use in questioning ahead of a deposition.Rudy Giuliani stonewalls Capitol attack investigators during lengthy depositionRead moreThe House minority leader also asked the panel to give him internal analyses about the constitutional and legal rationales justifying the subpoena, and whether the panel would adhere to one-hour questioning between majority and minority counsel, according to the letter.McCarthy’s references to the minority counsel amounted to a thinly veiled attack at the investigation, which Republicans have called illegitimate because the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, refused last year to appoint some of McCarthy’s picks for the Republican minority.The accusations, however, are to some degree disingenuous: it was McCarthy who pulled all Republican participation, incensed at Pelosi’s refusals, rather than name different members. Pelosi later added Republican congressmembers Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger to the panel.McCarthy’s requests also appeared phrased in a manner expecting the select committee to decline his requests, with the letter accusing the panel of issuing unprecedented subpoenas to five House Republicans in an illegal and unconstitutional manner.“The select committee is clearly not acting within the confines of any legislative purpose,” the letter said. “It is unclear how the select committee believes it is operating within the bounds of law or even within the confines of any legislative purpose.”The response from McCarthy largely mirrored the response from Ohio congressman Jim Jordan on Wednesday. In the letter, obtained by the Guardian, Jordan said he would consider complying only if the panel shared material that put him under scrutiny.Like with Jordan, it was not immediately clear how McCarthy might act if the select committee refused his requests. The investigation’s standard operating procedure to date has been not to share such materials with witnesses, according to a source familiar with the matter.The panel’s next move could have significant ramifications for both its inquiry and Congress. If the panel refused the request and the five subpoenaed House Republicans in turn declined to cooperate, it could leave large unanswered questions about the Capitol attack.But it could also set a problematic precedent for Republicans themselves, who might like the idea of subpoenaing Democrats in partisan investigations should the GOP take control of the House – as Capitol Hill widely expects – after the 2022 midterm elections.A spokesperson for the select committee declined to comment.The resistance from McCarthy came as he and Jordan denounced the investigation as a “kangaroo court” in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. “For House Republican leaders to agree to participate in this political stunt would change the House forever,” they wrote.With McCarthy’s refusal to appear for a deposition without first receiving materials from the select committee, at least four of the five Republicans subpoenaed to testify about their roles in the events of 6 January have now declined to comply without some sort of negotiation.The current chairman of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, Scott Perry, and its previous chairman, Andy Biggs, have both sent letters to the panel refusing to cooperate, CNN reported. It was not clear whether the fifth Republican, Mo Brooks, would comply.TopicsUS Capitol attackRepublicansHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Jim Jordan demands material on him before complying with January 6 subpoena

      by

      Jim Jordan demands material on him before complying with January 6 subpoenaRepublican congressman sent a six-page letter to the panel asking for materials that put him under scrutiny for his cooperation Republican congressman Jim Jordan told the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack that he would consider complying with the panel’s subpoena only if they shared the material that put him under scrutiny, according to a letter he sent Wednesday.The response by Jordan – the top Republican on the House judiciary committee who spoke to Donald Trump on January 6 – stopped short of a refusal to comply with his subpoena, though it was not clear how he would proceed if the panel refused his request.In the six-page letter sent to the select committee and obtained by the Guardian, Jordan demanded House investigators share with him all materials they intended to rely upon in questioning, materials in which he is referenced, and legal analyses about subpoenaing members of Congress.Capitol attack committee seeks appearance by Trump ally Jim JordanRead more“Because your subpoena is an unprecedented use of a committee’s compulsory authority against another member,” Jordan said in his letter, “I respectfully ask for the following material so that I may adequately further respond to your subpoena.”The response puts the ball in the select committee’s court, forcing House investigators to decide whether they will acquiesce to Jordan’s demands in the hope that it convinces him to give some testimony, or refuse and potentially close off any chance of cooperation.But the letter, which challenged the legality of the select committee and its subpoenas, appeared to be something of a gambit for Jordan, too. For one thing, it was not clear whether Jordan wanted to face the consequences for defying a subpoena if his demands were not met.The response from Jordan – finalized on Tuesday and sent to the panel on Wednesday – also included complaints that House investigators had not acted in good faith by issuing a subpoena around four months after Jordan apparently declined to give voluntary assistance.“Your subpoena was unprompted and, in light of the unaddressed points from my January 9 letter, plainly unreasonable. I write to strongly contest the constitutionality and validity of the subpoena in several respects,” Jordan said.The select committee’s subpoena to Jordan – which came alongside four other subpoenas to House minority leader Kevin McCarthy, Scott Perry, Andy Biggs and Mo Brooks – demanded testimony about his December 2020 meetings with Trump in the White House and other communications.House investigators took the step to issue the unprecedented subpoenas to five Republican members of Congress after Jordan, McCarthy and Perry did not appear for interviews on tentative dates suggested in initial letters seeking voluntary cooperation.TopicsUS Capitol attackRepublicansUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump said maybe mob was right to chant ‘Hang Mike Pence’ – report

      by

      Donald Trump said maybe mob was right to chant ‘Hang Mike Pence’ – reportNew York Times reports witnesses told Capitol attack committee about ex-president’s comment, made on day of January 6 riot Donald Trump reportedly reacted to chants about hanging his vice-president, Mike Pence, during the US Capitol attack by saying maybe the mob was right.Capitol attack panel to hold six public hearings as it aims to show how Trump broke lawRead moreThe New York Times reported the bombshell White House comment on Tuesday.Two witnesses, the paper said, have confirmed to the House committee investigating the events of 6 January 2021 that Mark Meadows, then Trump’s chief of staff, described Trump “saying something to the effect of, maybe Mr Pence should be hung”.The Times said it was not clear if Trump was serious.Pence was at the Capitol to preside over certification of Joe Biden’s victory, the process the mob tried to stop after being told to “fight like hell” by Trump.A makeshift gallows was set up outside. Rioters inside were heard to chant “Hang Mike Pence”. Multiple accounts have said aides pleaded with Trump to call off the mob but he delayed for hours.Despite Trump advisers’ attempts to persuade him otherwise, Pence concluded he did not have the authority to reject electoral college results.Trump has defended the chants about hanging Pence before, telling the author Jon Karl, “Well, the people were very angry,” and adding that it was just “common sense” to be so because Pence was not attempting to block electoral college results.News of Trump’s contemporaneous remark about Pence and hanging comes at a time of tension between the two men, as both eye a run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024.Trump continues to broadcast his lie about electoral fraud in 2020, which fueled the Capitol attack, and to endorse Republicans who repeat it.Pence has backed candidates opposed to the Trump lie including Brian Kemp, the governor of Georgia who scored a landslide victory over a Trump-backed challenger in a primary contest on Tuesday.A Trump spokesman, Taylor Budowich, told the Times: “This partisan committee’s vague ‘leaks’, anonymous testimony and willingness to alter evidence proves it’s just an extension of the Democrat smear campaign that has been exposed time and time again for being fabricated and dishonest.”But, as the paper put it: “Mr Budowich did not address the substance of the information provided to the committee.”Meadows did not comment. He cooperated with the House committee then withdrew. It referred him to the Department of Justice for a charge of criminal contempt of Congress, like that to which the Trump ally Steve Bannon has pleaded not guilty. Contempt of Congress can bring prison time but in Meadows’ case no charge has been forthcoming.The Times also cited unnamed sources as saying witnesses have told the January 6 committee Meadows “used the fireplace in his office to burn documents”.The Guardian reported this week that the House committee is preparing to hold six public hearings in June, the first and last in prime time.TopicsDonald TrumpMike PenceUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Blow to Madison Cawthorn as appeals court reverses ‘insurrectionist’ ruling

      by

      Blow to Madison Cawthorn as appeals court reverses ‘insurrectionist’ rulingPeople who take part in insurrections against US government can be barred from office and 1872 act does not apply, court rules People who take part in insurrections against the US government can be barred from office, an appeals court said on Tuesday, reversing a ruling in favor of Madison Cawthorn, an extremist Republican politician from North Carolina.Trump-backed nominees lost in Georgia, but can Republicans escape the specter of Maga?Read moreHailing a “major victory”, Free Speech For People, the group which brought the case, said: “This ruling cements the growing judicial consensus that the 1872 Amnesty Act does not shield the insurrectionists of 6 January 2021 – including Donald Trump – from the consequences of their actions.”Cawthorn lost a primary this month and will not return to Congress in November. But Free Speech For People pursued an appeal.It also brought cases against Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, two Arizona Republicans, Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs, and an Arizona state representative, Mark Finchem. All have been unsuccessful.The challenges cited the the 14th amendment to the US constitution, passed after the civil war.It says: “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … to support the constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”Cawthorn and the other Republicans were closely tied to events around the deadly January 6 attack on the US Capitol by Trump supporters seeking to stop certification of Joe Biden’s election victory. They have denied knowledge of plans for violence.In answer to Free Speech for People, lawyers argued that an 1872 amnesty law for former Confederates did not only apply retroactively. Judges sided with them.Ruling in the Cawthorn appeal, Toby Heytens, one of a three-judge panel of the US court of appeals for the US fourth circuit, wrote: “The available evidence suggests that the Congress that enacted the 1872 Amnesty Act was, understandably, laser-focused on the then-pressing problems posed by the hordes of former Confederates seeking forgiveness.”Heytens also said only Congress could decide such matters, writing: “When the district court here tried to determine the effect of the 1872 Amnesty Act on Representative Cawthorn’s qualification for access to the ballot, the attempt amounted to a judging of his qualifications for office. The district court had no jurisdiction to make that call.”Praveen Fernandes, vice-president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, which filed an amicus brief, said: “Although Representative Cawthorn just lost his party’s nomination for his seat in Congress, today’s ruling remains an incredibly important one.“It makes clear that the 1872 Amnesty Act poses no barrier to similar future … challenges of the qualification of candidates to appear on the ballot, thus ensuring that section three of the 14th amendment can continue to serve its purpose as an important mechanism for holding public officials accountable when they violate their oaths of office.”Cawthorn did not immediately comment.TopicsRepublicansUS politicsUS Capitol attacknewsReuse this content More